| Literature DB >> 30960976 |
Kailash Chandra Khulbe1, Takeshi Matsuura2.
Abstract
Thin film composite (TFC) polymeric hollow fiber (HF) membranes are widely used in industrial gas/vapor separations and water treatment. There are many advantages of TFC HF membranes, such as low energy requirements, simplicity of operation, and high specificity. In the present article, a review is made on the progress that has been achieved during the past 15 years in the preparation of the HF substrate and the preparation/modification of the thin selective layer. The review also includes their applications in water treatment, dehydration of alcohols via pervaporation, and gas/vapor separation.Entities:
Keywords: dehydration of alcohols; pervaporation; thin composite hollow fiber; water treatment; water vapor separation
Year: 2018 PMID: 30960976 PMCID: PMC6403908 DOI: 10.3390/polym10101051
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Apparatus for the fabrication of hollow fibers (HFs) [5].
Figure 2(a) Single layer tri-needle spinneret; (b) bottom view of the tri-needle spinneret; and (c) cross section [6].
Figure 3Interfacial polymerization (IP) between trimosyl trichloride (TMC) and 1,3-phenylenediamine (MPD).
Figure 4Range of nominal membrane pore sizes.
Figure 5Possible chemical structure of the interfacially polymerized network formed with hyperbranched polyethyleneimine and isophthaloyl chloride [18].
Figure 6Strategies to control the phase inversion process with the aid of coextrusion technology employing a dual-layer spinneret [28].
Figure 7Schematic of fouling phenomena: (a) The conventional thin-film composite (TFC) membrane and (b) the newly developed double-skin TFC membrane in forward osmosis (FO) (under the pressure-retarded osmosis (PRO) mode) and PRO processes [30].
TFC hollow fiber membrane for water treatment.
| TFC HF Membrane | Use | Results | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reverse Osmosis | |||
| PDA-PES | Desalination | High flux, excellent power density performance, and good stability. Can be used in all engineered osmosis applications, including PRO. | [ |
| PA-PSF, post treated with NaOCl | Desalination | Salt rejection of 96.3% and pure water flux of 10.9 L·m−2·h−1. | [ |
| Low-pressure NH3 plasma treatment (six commercial TFC membranes (3 NF, 3 RO) | Water treatment | CA of NH3 plasma treated membranes were decreased with increasing plasma treatment time. Surface hydrophilicity increased. | [ |
| Nano filtration | |||
| Polypiperazine amide-PES/PVDF | Waste water treatment | High-flux and outstanding selectivity of TOC/TDS. | [ |
| HPEI-Torlon® PAI (NF) | Removal of organic matters from water | Water permeability 4.9 L m−2 bar−1 h−1. | [ |
| PVA + PQ-10–PP | Desalination | Salt rejection order CaCl2 > MgCl2 > NaCl > MgSO4 > Na2SO4. | [ |
| PA-PSF | Removal of dye etc. | MWCO 490 to 730 g/mole. Rejections: Reactive black-5 and rhodamine-B 60–97%, water flux of 10–35 mL m−2 h−1 at 25 psi. | [ |
| CMCNa/PP | Water treatment | MWCO 700 Da. Remove anionic dyes. The dye retention 99.8%, water permeability 7.0 L m−2 h−1 bar, salt rejection 99.8%. | [ |
| PIP + TMC-PSF + PES | Heavy metal removal | Pure water flux of approximately 152 L m−2 h−1 at 0.1 MPa. Rejection rates for chromium, copper, and nickel ions were 95.76%, 95.33%, and 94.99%, respectively. | [ |
| PA (TMC + PIP)-PVDF | Desalination | Rejections Na2SO4, MgCl2, KCl, NaCl, PEG600 and PEG1000—92.3%, 7.0%, 9.5%, 14.2%, 88.4%, and 89.3% respectively. | [ |
| Si NPTs + TETA-PSF | Desalination | Rejection increased from 15.17% to 25.44% with increasing the TETA concentration from 0.5% to 10% ( | [ |
| Fullerene C60(OH)22–24 + PA-PSF | Water treatment | Superior antifouling properties. Decrease of pure water flux and a slight increase of rejection of lysozyme and PVP K-15. Superior antifouling properties. Correlation between surface properties and fouling behavior. | [ |
| PA-PEI | PWP about 17 L m−2 h−1 bar−1. Rejections for Mg2+ and Ca2+ ions around 90%. Water flux 20 L m−2 h−1 at 2 bar pressure. Suitable for water softening applications. | [ | |
| Forward Osmosis, Pressure Retarded Osmosis | |||
| Functional selective PA layer-PES | Desalination application | Relatively high water fluxes FO 32–34 L m−2 h−1. PRO 57–65 L m−2 h−1 (PRO) for pure water feed and 2 M NaCl as the draw solution. Model seawater solution as the feed, water flux up to 15–18 L m−2 h−1. | [ |
| PA-PPSU | Desalination in FO process | FO and PRO. | [ |
| PA-PES | Waste water treatment | High feed recovery of 80% in the FO mode. | [ |
| PA-PES | Water treatment, desalination | Water flux 12.4 L m−2 h−1 for 3.5 wt % NaCl feed solution and 2 M NaCl draw solution. | [ |
| PA-PES | Water treatment, desalination | Excellent intrinsic separation properties. Water flux of 42.6 L m−2 h−1 using 0.5 M NaCl as the draw solution. | [ |
| PA-Matrimid® | Saline water treatment | High water fluxes of 50.5 L m−2 h−1 and 11.8 L m−2 h−1 with salt leakages as low as 3.5 and 2.5 g m−2 h−1, in PRO and FO modes, when using 2 M NaCl as the draw solution and pure water as the feed. | [ |
| PA-polyketone | Saline water treatment | HF with smaller diameter -higher FO flux and better mechanical properties than those larger diameter HF. | [ |
| PA-PES | Desalination | Under optimized conditions, water flux—42.6 L h−1 m−2 using 0.5 M NaCl as draw solution. Superior performance as FO HF. | [ |
| PA-PES | Water treatment | Could be used in PRO process. Water permeability—9.22 × 10−12 ms−1 Pa−1. Salt permeability—3.86 × 10−8 m s−1. Structural parameter—4.6 × 10−4 m. | [ |
| PDA-PES | Water treatment | Very high flux, excellent power density performance, and good stability. Can be used in all engineered osmosis applications, including PRO. | [ |
| PA-CaCl2 + PES | Saline water treatment | Highest pure water permeability. Very low salt permeability. | [ |
TFC hollow fiber membrane for separation and dehydration of alcohols via pervaporation.
| Membrane | Use | Result | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pervaporation | |||
| PA (4 different MPD and 3 different HPEI)-PA + imide | Isopropanol dehydration | Separation factor of 624, flux 1282 g m−2 h−1, permeate 99.1 wt % water. | [ |
| GOTMS + PA-Poly ether imide (Ultem®) | Isopropanol dehydration | Separation performance surpassing ceramic membranes. | [ |
| PA-PES (dual layer), Surface modified polydopamine or silicone rubber | Ethanol dehydration | Water separation factors 51 and 60, high fluxes 6.6 and 7.5 kg m−2 h−1. Good selectivity/separation factors. | [ |
| PA-PAN + SiO2 (dual layer, triple orifice spinneret) | Separation of 90 wt.% aqueous isopropanol solution | 419 g m−2 h−1 of permeation flux and 96.6 wt % of water content in permeate. | [ |
| Poly (ether imide) Ultem® 1010 (tri-bore hollow fiber) | Isopropanol dehydration | Flux 2.65 kg m−2 h−1 with a separation factor of 246 for water/IPA separation at 50 °C using 85/15 wt % IPA/water as the feed. | [ |
| Teflon AF2400 layer on the outer surface of Ultem HFs (dip coating) | Isopropanol dehydration | Flux 4265 g m−2 h−1, separation factor 383 for 95% isopropanol dehydration at 125 °C. | [ |
TFC hollow fiber membrane for the separation of gas or gas/water vapor mixtures.
| Membrane | Use | Result | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| CO2/methane and CO2/nitrogen separation | |||
| PEBA-PEI | CO2/N2 | Permeate stream containing 62 mol % CO2 was obtained at a CO2 recovery of 20%. 99.4 mol %. N2 in the residue with a nitrogen recovery of 36%. | [ |
| Four kinds of TFC composite HFM | Gas separation | High CO2 and N2 permeability. CO2/N2 selectivity’s 3.4–2.5. | [ |
| Pebax®1657/[emim][BF4] gel membranes in the form of thin film composite hollow fiber membranes | Separation of CO2 mixed-gas containing traces of water vapor and NOx | Excellent mechanical durability, potential application for CO2 capture with real gas feed. | [ |
| Modified air plasma and the Piranha etch PTMSP-PSF | CO2 permeance | High permeance (3.3 × 105 GPU) in comparison with unmodified membranes including highest surface energy. | [ |
| PDMS containing Cu3(BTC)2 MOF-PSF | Gas permeation properties | CO2 permeance increased from 69.7 to 109.2 × 10−6 cm3 (STP)/cm2 s cmHg. CO2/CH4 and CO2/N2 selectivity increased. | [ |
| SO2 Removal | |||
| PEBAX/PEI | Removal SO2 from mixed gases | Permeance of SO2 and CO2 increased. | [ |
| PVC-g-POEM-PEI | Separation of gases. | Permeation of SO2 105–2705 GPU, Selectivity SO2/CO2—3.9–175.6. Mixed gas separation SO2 removal efficiency reached up to 84.5%. | [ |
| O2/N2 separation | |||
| PDMS or PEBAX-PSF (DCo) | Oxygen enrichment | Higher permeance O2 and N2. | [ |
| PDMS-PAN (DCo) | Gas separation | N2 permeance 280 GPU, O2/N2 selectivity of 2.2, water vapor permeance 800 to 3700 GPU. | [ |
| PVDMS-PVDF (DCo) | Gas separation | Permeability and selectivity were in good agreement with the theoretical results. | [ |
| PDMS-ceramic (DCo) | Oxygen enrichment from air | Permeance of 104 GPU with O2/N2 ideal selectivity of 2.0. | [ |
| PIM-CD/PDMS/PAN | Gas separation | O2/N2 and CO2/N2 selectivity, 3.2 and 22.5, respectively. | [ |
| Water vapor transport | |||
| PDA-PES (DCo) | Water vapor/N2 mixtures | Excellent selectivity. Permeance 3185 GPU, selectivity 195. | [ |
| MOF incorporated TFN NH2-MIL-125 (Ti)-PSF | Water vapor separation from flue gas | Water vapor permeance increased from 785 GPU (TFC) to 2244 GPU (MOF@TFN3). Selectivity 116 to 542 with NH2-MIL-125 (Ti) MOF. | [ |
| ABn-NH-TFN-PSf | Water vapor/N2 | Vapor permeance 2809 GPU, vapor/N2 selectivity 913. | [ |
| Carboxylated TiO2 + PA-HF | Flue gas dehydration | Permeance 1340 GPU, selectivity 486. | [ |
| BDT, MPD, BTT), PIP-PES | Water vapor/N2 | BDT exhibited superior results, water vapor permeance 2054 GPU and the water vapor/N2 selectivity 119. | [ |